Reverberating Beyond the Region in Addressing Air Pollution in North-East Asia1
Sangmin Nam and Heejoo Lee2
1
This paper was presented at the Interdisciplinary Workshop “Comparing Regional Environmental Governance in
East Asia and Europe”, 24-25, January 2013, Kyoto
2
Sangmin Nam, PhD, Environmental Affairs Officer and Heejoo Lee, MCP, Consultant, UNESCAP Subregional Office
for East and North-East Asia. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely
those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the UN.
1. Introduction
Regional environmental governance has been a locus of multilateral governance as geographical
proximity, climatic contiguity and ecological interconnections among members of a region
clearly represent many aspects of ecological interdependence, which could be a source of
“common fate” or “mutual vulnerability” among the members (Soroos, 1997: 266-7).
Deterioration of common pool resources (e.g. high seas and the atmosphere) and shared
environmental resources (e.g. international rivers) drive the concerned countries into becoming
members of a destined ecological community. In turn, natural linkages existing in ecosystems
that have boundaries within and across the sub-national, national and regional levels create
concrete grounds for joint actions. As a result, globally, about 64 percent of multilateral
environmental agreements are categorized as regional in terms of their geographical scope
(UNEP, 2001: 2).
However, North-East Asia has hardly embraced the global trend of charting regional treaties or
agreements that stipulate national compliance of agreed principles and rules. Instead, most
mechanisms are rather informal in terms of their institutional arrangements and are mostly
limited to information sharing and capacity building. This condition is not exceptional for
regional governance on transboundary air pollution. North-East Asian countries have
participated in different mechanisms, both small (North-East Asia) and large (East Asia
comprising both North-East Asia and South-East Asia), for jointly addressing air pollution.
Throughout such processes, North-East Asia has gradually expanded the foundation for building
consensual knowledge and political commitments.
In the course of atmospheric governance, there is a growing recognition for the need to
reverberate beyond North-East Asia. This need comes into two contexts: (1) harnessing benefits
of knowledge and experiences from other regions, in particular, Europe, to strengthen
consensual knowledge on the regional state of air pollution and (2) identifying its linkages with
newly emerging issues such as the hemispheric transport of emerging air pollutions including
short–lived climate forcers (SLCFs).
The organization of the paper is as follows. It first reviews the progress and limitations of
atmospheric governance in North-East Asia by delving into the implications of a key contributive
factor, i.e. consensual scientific knowledge, for creating and advancing an environmental
governance regime. Consensual knowledge alone is certainly not enough to create the
necessary momentum to galvanize commitments from the member States. But without it,
political will alone cannot establish an effective environmental governance regime that can
overcome the fundamental disparities among different countries’ perspectives and address the
complexities of an environmental issue.
The paper then looks at the potential areas and approaches for reverberating beyond the region.
The endogenous need to strengthen its internal epistemic community – especially regarding
monitoring and modeling – necessitates learning from other regions’ experiences and
knowledge. Exogenous needs such as new issues and problems emerging also require
reverberating and collaborating with other regional counterparts. Furthermore, endogenous
needs also have exogenous dimensions because of the global environmental implications of air
1
pollutions from North-East Asia. In this regard, this paper identifies formulating ways for NorthEast Asia to contribute to resolving emerging global issues such as SLCFs and climate change.
2. Atmospheric Governance in North-East Asia
2.1. Overview of Governance Mechanisms
Concerning transboundary air pollution, North-East Asian countries have collaborated through
two formal mechanisms, Acid Deposition Monitoring Network in East Asia (EANET) and Longrange Transboundary Pollution (LTP) Project. EANET came to existence after a series of expert
meetings from 1993 and then the first Intergovernmental Meeting in 1998. The geographical
scope covers 54 deposition monitoring sites in 13 countries of both North-East and South-East
Asia3 . As the name explicitly defines, the primary target of EANET is acid deposition; the
objective being the prevention or reduction of its adverse impacts through creating a common
understanding of the problems, providing useful inputs for decision-making and facilitating
international cooperation on related issues. In order to achieve this objective, EANET has
developed guidelines, technical manuals, and Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)
programmes for the harmonization of monitoring methods and collection of accurate data.
While EANET monitoring mainly targets acidifying substances, it has also expanded to include
other chemical species such as ozone and particulate matters (PM). However, unlike reporting
of acidifying substances, only a limited number of countries report the monitoring results of
chemical species4.
In terms of institutional arrangements, EANET has gained a stronger political ground in 2012. Its
official launching as an intergovernmental programme was not underpinned by any formal
agreement but by the “Joint Announcement on the Implementation of EANET” that was
adopted at the Second Intergovernmental Meeting in 2000. Subsequently, EANET had a series
of negotiation and adopted a formal agreement called “Instrument for Strengthening EANET” in
2010, which came into effect in January 2012.
Compared to EANET, LTP could be viewed as a sub-programme owing to its small geographical
scope that covers only China, Japan and the Republic of Korea, and its weak institutional basis
lacking any intergovernmental agreement. However, LTP has significant potential in
strengthening atmospheric governance beyond North-East Asia. The potential is embedded in
different aspects: first, the huge scale of air pollutions generated from North-East Asia, which
accounts for one-fourth of SO2 emissions and one-third of CO2 emissions in the world; second,
the flexible arrangement of programme planning through the Joint Research Proposal, which
provides room for LTP to expand its scope of targeted pollutants - for example heavy metals and
POPs. Despite such potential, LTP has rarely been a subject for scholarly discussions on
atmospheric governance in North-East Asia. This is due to its low visibility and limited access to
its information for outsiders. Given such potential of LTP to expand and advance its scope, this
3
Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Philippines, Republic of Korea, the
Russian Federation, Thailand and Vietnam.
4
Currently, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation and Thailand report on ozone and China, Japan, Republic
of Korea, and Thailand report on PM, to the Network Center.
2
chapter will mainly focus on the assessment of LTP in order to present the implications of
atmospheric governance in the region.
2.2. Background and achievements of LTP
LTP was launched in 1999 after roughly a four-year-long preliminary stage. During this stage,
intentions and objectives for establishing LTP were shared through workshops, expert meetings,
working group meetings, and research proposals. When LTP was launched in August 1999,
monitoring parameters, modeling details, and two sub-working groups had already been
determined. As for the involved stakeholders, LTP was initiated by the Ministry of Environment
of the Republic of Korea, and the Secretariat role was assigned to a Korean government-run
research institute, the National Institute for Environmental Research (NIER).
The First Stage spanning from 2000 to 2004 concentrated on building an international
cooperation platform and formally agreeing on the monitoring parameters and methodologies.
Database on atmospheric pollution concentration and emission was also established, along with
enhancement of estimation techniques and introduction of source-receptor relationship (SRR)
analysis. During the Second Stage from 2005 to 2007, monitoring data were analyzed, LTP
emission inventories were developed, and transport of sulfur was modeled. As most activities
carried on, the scope of monitoring parameters, geographical domain and methodologies
continued to expand. Finally, in the most recent Third Stage from 2008 to 2012, the preceding
activities continued while modeling activities were improved through model inter-comparison.
Also, future emissions scenario has been made, along with development of vulnerability map
through soil ecological impacts assessment.
Despite such expansion in coverage and activities, many aspects are still lacking. In terms
of model inter-comparison, full model output and detail process dynamics have not yet been
performed except for SRR modeling. Furthermore, while essential items under monitoring
parameters have good coverage, optional items as recommended monitoring targets are poorly
covered (SWG, 2012: 135-147).
3. Consensual knowledge, atmospheric governance and LTP
Building atmospheric governance requires an apparent basis of consensual knowledge to shape
state actors’ perception of the environmental problem and preference for institutionalizing
internationally coordinated actions. The domain of consensual knowledge includes not only the
scientific aspects of a given issue, but also the social and economic consequences of the issue
and the implications of associated policy measures. In particular, the past experiences of
regional conventions on transboundary air pollution in Europe and North America show that
scientific consensus on ecological, social and economic impacts of air pollution on source and
adjacent countries is critical for overcoming the political impediments to establishing regional
programmes (Levy, 1993: 76). The scientific knowledge had also been a key to promoting the
formation and the growth of Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP).
Not only did CLRTAP greatly benefit during its startup phase from the monitoring programme
that had been started by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
3
in 1972 all around Europe, but the upgrading of CLRTAP to incorporate critical load approach
also benefited from the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP) monitoring
and the Regional Air Pollution Information and Simulation (RAINS) model of International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) (Lidskog and Sundqvist, 2002: 88, 92).
Even before that, Europe accumulated the experience of joint research on the impact of longdistance transport of air pollution through initiating a large scale, long-term project in the mid1940s that would become the European Air Chemistry Network (Clark et al., 2001: 30). In
addition, the experience of policy coordination on sulfur content of liquid fuels under European
Commission Environmental Action Programme in the mid-1970s (Huber and Liberatore, 2001:
296) contributed to successful formation and nurturing of CLRTAP. All of these existing
experiences and knowledge allowed the CLRTAP to come into shape and implement impact
assessment - subsequently the concept of critical loads. This advanced scientific approach,
particularly the critical loads approach, readily translated into policy. It brought the work of the
CLRTAP regime to a new era, namely the signing of Protocol on Further Reduction of Sulphur
Emissions. This upgrading created a more advanced regime that expanded its pollutant scope to
several compounds and led to more accountable modeling standards that incorporated many
effects and varying national reductions (Lidskog and Sundqvist, 2002: 90).
Unlike Europe however, North-East Asia was only able to start joint research on transboundary
air pollution from mid-1990s due to the complete vacuum of multilateralism during the Cold
War era. As a result, modeling and monitoring of long-range transport of air pollution have
serious limitations in terms of their history and scope, thereby still faces difficulties in building
consensual knowledge on the causality of emissions and their impact.
3.1. Modeling emission scenario
Modeling has been the major area of joint work under LTP. Introduction of SRR analysis in the
First Stage, followed by attempts to implement model inter-comparison, impact assessment,
and future emissions scenario have been active areas for building consensual knowledge. The
main tool for SRR analysis was developed by each of the three countries via their own numerical
models to calculate SRR for sulfur and nitrogen, while simulation work followed a jointly agreed
guideline (Chang, 2012).
For the SRR analysis, LTP divides the three countries into five separate regions: Northern,
Central, and Southern China, Korea, and Japan as shown in [Figure 1]. In the 2011 Annual Report,
the Chinese group provided the total N deposition (sum of dry and wet deposition of NOx,
nitrate, HNO3, and PAN), in average value for the 12 months of 2006. The result shows that
Region II makes significant contribution to other regions: it accounts for 62.0% of the total N
deposition in Region I, 37.2% in Region IV (Republic of Korea), 33.5% in Region III and 19.5% in
Region V (Japan).
Figure 1 Five source-receptor regions
4
Region I
N. China (>40oN)
Region II
C. China (30-40oN)
Region III
S. China (<30oN)
Region IV
Republic of Korea
Region V
Japan
In the 2012 Annual Report, the three countries again analyze SRR with data from 2006, for the
months of February, May, June, and November. [Figure 2] shows the average values for each of
the three countries’ own analysis, revealing slight discrepancies among the three country’s
modeled values. The discrepancies arise due to the complicated nature of transboundary air
pollution modeling.
Figure 2 Relative contribution from sources to receptors for total nitrate dry and wet
deposition, average value over Feb, May, Jun, Nov of 20065
5
All tables and figures are authors’ own, created using data from Secretariat of Working Group for the LTP Project
April 2012Annual Report: The Twelfth year’s Joint Research on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollutants in
Northeast Asia.
5
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Contribution from Region I
I
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
II
III
IV
Receptor Region
Percent
Percent
ROK study
Japanese study
Chinese study
I
V
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
II
III
IV
Receptor Region
V
Contribution from Region IV
Percent
Percent
Contribution from Region III
I
II
III
IV
I
V
Receptor Region
Percent
Contribution from Region II
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
II
III
IV
V
Receptor Region
Contribution from Region V
I
II
III
IV
V
Receptor Region
However, the value disparity among the countries has been in fact narrowed compared to the
past. Modeling simulations of long-range transport of air pollution emerged while political
tension over any discussions on transboundary air pollution clearly existed. During the 1990s,
Chinese and non-Chinese scientists presented very different understandings on the regional
impacts of sulfur emission from China. Chinese experts estimated that China accounts for only
3.5 percent of Japan’s total sulfur deposition (Huang et al., 1995: 1925). In contrast, Japanese
experts concluded that China is responsible for one-half of the anthropogenic wet sulfur
deposition (Ichikawa and Fujita, 1995: 1931). Although Chinese research included both dry and
wet sulfur deposition, and the Japanese research focused on wet deposition only, the results
present a significant gap. Japanese scholars and international collaborative research also found
that wet sulfate deposition accounted for 60-70 percent of total deposition in Japan (Carmichael
and Arndt, 1997: 7). This finding implied that the value disparity between the two outcomes is
6
roughly ten times. While this problem resulted from employing different models and
methodologies, experts outside the two countries recognized this disparity as a symbolic gap
among Northeast Asian experts’ understanding, and the hurdles in building consensual
knowledge on regional air pollution issues (Shim, 2000: 23; Carmichael et al., 1999: 2).
This gap has become much narrower in the 2000s, as seen in [Table 1]. In a number of cases, the
Chinese impact on other countries are stated as higher than what is found by the receptor
countries. Such findings may implicate subdued political tension with higher regards for
objective scientific approaches.
Table 1 Relative contributions in percentage for total nitrate dry and wet deposition
from China (Region I, II, III) to Korea and Japan
From China (Reg. I, II, III)
From China (Reg. I, II, III)
to Korea (Reg. IV)
to Japan (Reg. V)
Feb
May
Jun
Nov
Feb
May
Jun
Nov
ROK study
79
47
11
47
65
35
11
29
Japanese
study
54
41
37
46
49
27
33
50
Chinese study
58
57
45
69
41
31
22
39
Meanwhile, disparities not only exist in the studies conducted by different countries, but they
also exist between estimated values and sampled values as demonstrated in [Figure 3] (SWG,
2012: 170). These gaps again highlight the need to mend the current scientific shortcomings in
failing to account for various factors such as the different chemical properties of various
pollutants and the effects of the local environment. Seasonal variations, microclimatic
conditions, nonlinear chemical reactions and photochemical reactions are also pending subjects
to be accounted for in order to achieve more accurate modeling (SWG, 2012: 240). In order to
enhance such scientific accuracy, the participation of wider groups of scientists also needs to be
further strengthened.
Figure 3 Comparison of NO2 concentrations between observed and modeled values
7
8
Sado-seki, Japan
observed
modeled
2
1
0
NO2 [ppb]
NO2 [ppb]
3
Gosan, Korea
observed
6
modeled
4
2
0
Feb
May
Jun
Nov
Feb
Month in 2006
May
Jun
Nov
Month in 2006
Sado-seki from Chinese study and Gosan from Korean study
Similarly, studies carried out under Model Inter-comparison Study in Asia (MICS-Asia) also
experience similar gaps and differences. MICS-Asia, with the general objective to build a
common understanding of model performance and uncertainties in Asia, carries out major
activities consisting of inter-comparison of multi-scale model, building emission inventory, and
bridging air quality and climate change together in view of model inter-comparison. Model
inter-comparison studies are dedicated to minimizing the inevitable uncertainties in the results
of numerical models associated with, inter alia, emission inventories, boundary conditions,
meteorological data, physical and chemical processes. They are also dedicated to curtailing the
discord in parameter setting and module selection that render large variability in the results
(Jiro, 2012).
Despite such difficulties in eliminating sources of error and obtaining higher accuracy, MICS-Asia
demonstrates how modeling can be useful exercise and tool for expanding its activities and
relevance. For example, Phase III of MICS-Asia endeavors to seek co-benefit approach by
merging air pollution and climate change. Towards this end, multi-model estimation of SLCFs
distributions and depositions has been one of key activities for establishing the bridge between
air quality and climate change (EuMetChem, 2012). Via rigorous scientific modeling that covers
a wide range of target pollutants, the issues that can be addressed by a regime can also expand.
3.2. Monitoring the influx of long-range transboundary air pollutants
In addition to modeling, monitoring is another key component of LTP as solid observation data
is required to build and validate the reliability of modeling data, in particular, with regards to
the flux for long-range transboundary air pollutants. Each participating country has set up two
monitoring sites and produced monitoring data for comparison and analysis as specified in the
Terms of Reference for Joint Research on LTP6. Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)
programmes on empirical results with calculated values are also undertaken in the LTP activities
of China, Japan, and Republic of Korea according to the guidelines and rules jointly established
6
The monitoring sites of each country include - Dalian and Xiamen in China, Oki and Rishiri in Japan, and Ganghwa
and Gosan in the Republic of Korea.
8
by participating institutions (Chang, 2012). Since the four years of preliminary stage that
deliberated on the details about monitoring targets, locations, methodologies, etc., monitoring
activities under LTP have been consistently expanding in terms of the parameters measured and
the methodologies utilized.
Although such means have been deliberated and implemented under collaboration, several
areas for improvement have been identified. First, utilization of the most recent data continues
to be a task to be fulfilled. China has been slow to upgrade its emissions and thus the model
simulations use 2006 emissions data (Shim, 2010: 9). Annual emission inventory from each
country will help discard outdated data and utilize the most recently updated data. Second, in
order to enhance the research activities of LTP, the Proposal for the future development of the
LTP project presented at the 2012 meeting states that data sharing through both monitoring
and modeling shall be expanded. The current continuous monitoring stations need to be
expanded to urban and suburban stations, increasing the number from two to four per country.
At the same time, O3, PM2.5, heavy metals, VOCs, and POPs are expected to be added to the
current list of monitored items of SO2, NO2, CO, PM10. In another aspect, intensive monitoring,
which is carried out twice a year, suffers from limitations in monitoring items and monitoring
period, as well as from the absence of inter-comparison observations. The recommendation by
experts call for joint monitoring at designated stations and changing the monitoring period from
ten days each in spring and fall of every year to 30 days each in every two to three years. Such
changes in monitoring procedures and parameters are recommended in order to provide more
fully embodied data.
3.3. Implications of institutional and programmatic development of LTP
LTP has also been impacted highly by its various institutional and programmatic characteristics.
This section briefly describes three different aspects that have largely hindered full-fledged
growth of the epistemic community of LTP and of the organization in general as an effective
regional environmental governance regime.
National interests: The first and the foremost challenge for the LTP in its institutional setting is
the lack of political status that can formalize the outcomes of the project into
intergovernmental actions. LTP is officially recognized as a project at the level of research
institutes, not at the level of government (Nam, 2002: 163). Disparity and conflict among
national interests also pose difficulties for the LTP to gain more forceful institutional status.
Between Japan and the Republic of Korea, there are clearly different embedded interests in
EANET and LTP due to different levels of ownership over each programme from their inception
(Woo, 2010: 19). As the major source of pollution, China has been traditionally defensive and
reluctant to commit, especially considering that a commitment indicates a cost and a
suppressor to its economic development. But China has gradually become active in multilateral
environmental initiatives, motivated by the threats of health and environmental deterioration
to the sustainability of its economic growth and by seeking opportunities in the initiatives to
strengthen its own capacity (Komori, 2010: 8-9).
9
Policy linkage: Also, the lack of structural link to bridge scientific findings to policymaking
hinders institutional growth. LTP does not organize a task force to perform central compilation
of monitoring and model data; instead, national reports are written annually and compiled at
the end of each phase to produce a regional report. This does not only hinder effective
collaboration to devise a fully integrated report, but it also obstructs translation of scientific
knowledge into policy. In response to this challenge, the Proposal for the future development of
the LTP project suggests forming a Science Advisory Committee that consists of authoritative
experts from the three countries that would be in charge of publishing a comprehensive report
for policymakers by integrating and analyzing reports by countries.
Limited participation of academic community: In LTP, the number of participating experts
remains relatively low, highlighting the need for a stronger epistemic community to help
depoliticize issues among countries. International collaboration to share information and to
make common policies do not necessarily imply finger-pointing and taking on burdens. For
instance, the SRR analysis has identified about 5 to 10 percent of the pollutant to be originating
from outside the LTP domain in the month of February. In addition, it was found that most of
the nitrate for Region III (Southern China) was found to be originating from its own region for
the months of February and November. As such, more accurate scientific findings not only
eliminate potential conflict of interest among countries, but also provide the possibilities to
depoliticize the environmental issues by identifying the potential benefits to each stakeholder.
A multiple suggestions have already been made for strengthening the epistemic community of
LTP: using satellite technology to monitor the atmosphere over the ocean surfaces, collecting
data on land use change as complementary to emission inventory, subdividing the current five
regions for SRR analysis, and utilizing advanced analysis methods that can model the causal
effects in the atmospheric pollution. These measures can establish a firm foundation for
instigating the engagement of official-level stakeholders, which will help translate the scientific
activities and results into policies. At the same time, encouraging utilization of more advanced
scientific methods is expected to induce more avid participation from academics that are
motivated by the employment of advanced scientific methods (Woo, 2010: 20).
4. Reverberating beyond the region
4.1. Linking with scientific community beyond the region
There is a converging view on the need for atmospheric governance in North-East Asia to take
multi-pollutants and multi-effect approach, and to improve the current settings of modeling and
monitoring works. It can be made more flexible for engaging a wider group of scientists and
utilizing publically-available data (Ghim et al., 2012: 136). A study commissioned by LTP pointed
out a rapid increase in the number of scientific papers on air pollutions in North-East Asia. In
particular, in an internationally renowned journal, Atmospheric Environment, papers containing
10
the keyword “China” were 196 during six years from 1994 to 1999, but the number increased to
1,751 during five years from 2006 to 2011 (Ghim et al., 2012: 136). This simple figure highlights
the rapid expansion of scientific community related to North-East Asian air pollution and the
significant potential in building solid epistemic community on the subject. However, there is yet
no effective formal mechanism to bring the outcomes of scientific research into LTP work or
share them with wider scientific community. Overcoming this missing link is crucial to narrow
existing gaps in the current modeling and monitoring work. In this regard, the LTPcommissioned study has suggested assigning modeling work to scientific community while its
own expert meeting would be responsible for ensuring the adequacy of the work and reliability
of results. It also recommends opening all LTP reports to outside community.
There is also the need for LTP to reverberate beyond North-East Asia with regard to taking
multi-pollutants and multi-effect approach. An expert review meeting held by North-East Asian
Subregional Programme for Environmental Cooperation (NEASPEC) in July 2012 identified the
need to implement a holistic programme of transboundary air pollution regulation, including
control of all main pollutants, air quality monitoring and emissions data gathering, atmospheric
modeling, impact assessment on health and ecosystems, and an effective emissions abatement
strategy. The meeting also identified the need to strengthen connection between research and
policy, using CLRTAP and EMEP as a model; and to provide a channel for open and effective
exchange of knowledge and data among members (NEASPEC, 2012). Responding to these
recommendations require the involvement of scientists from diverse disciplines and interregional collaboration, in particular, with European and North American regions. A NEASPECcommissioned study pointed out that EANET has collaborated with CLRTAP on data
compatibility with European/North American data (Jiro, 2012: 10). Such could be the way
forward for LTP, especially in the context of newly emerging problems that require collaborated
efforts.
4.2. Emerging issues compelling inter-regional cooperation
The rising concern surrounding SLCFs is anticipated to bring focused efforts to further
reverberate beyond conventional region. Because SLCFs place traditional “air pollution” issues
in the context of global climate change, local or regional problems are approached from a global
perspective; thus compelling the scientists and policy makers to take co-benefit approach that
treat air pollution and climate change in an integrated way. In particular, black carbon, emitted
as soot from with biomass and biofuel burning, as well as fossil fuel combustion, has been
recognized as a powerful SCLF requiring priority attention. Deriving from air pollutants, those
conventional problems that were thought to be local problems are being uncovered to reveal
that they have significant implications for global problems, such as black carbon being the
second most important contributor to rising global temperature next to carbon dioxide
(Ramanathan, 2007: 5, 7).
In Europe, the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution (TF HTAP) under CLRTAP in
2010 recommended that black carbon components of transported PM need to be better
understood as they are a part of intercontinental transport of aerosols. With black carbon as
one of aerosols that are transported at long-range, the TF HTAP recommended to put particular
11
importance to the long-range transport of black carbon for understanding climatic implications
(TF HTAP, 2010: 49). In this regard, CLRTAP established Expert Group on Black Carbon in June
2010, with a mandate to devise options for revising 1999 Gothenburg Protocol of the CLRTAP.
The Expert Group had recognized that no country has a comprehensive programme to measure
and report the emissions and ambient concentrations of black carbon and therefore encouraged
efforts toward gathering and sharing data (UNECE, 2010: 2).
The issue of black carbon in Europe has already instigated inter-regional collaboration by
geographically locating the potential consequences of the issue to the Arctic and identifying
associated stakeholders. As the expert group raised the issue of black carbon emission from
shipping in the Arctic, collaboration with International Maritime Organization (IMO) was put
forward as another recommended action. This also opened up a channel for inter-regional
cooperation with the Asian counterparts because of the known fact that the Arctic is heavily
influenced by the Asian anthropogenic emissions due to more efficient lifting of emissions into
the free troposphere in Asia than in Europe (TF HTAP, 2010: 160).
The SLCF and black carbon in particular are sure to be of utmost importance for NEA as well.
The five regional hotspots of black carbon in the world include East Asia, which comprises
eastern China, Thailand, Vietnam, and Cambodia (Ramanathan, 2007: 7). In particular, black
carbon emissions from China alone could be almost twice of total emissions from Europe. IIASA
estimated black carbon emissions from Europe to be 0.8 million tons, while a study by experts
from from China Meteorological Administration on black carbon inventory in China estimated
1.5 million tons for China in 2000. The inventory study identified that the majority amounting to
54.5% was attributed to the residential sector, followed by industry (36.27%), biomass burning
(6.88%), transportation (1.79%), and power (0.53%) (Cao et al., 2007: 77). The highest black
carbon emission was from coal use in residential and industrial sector of the rural area. Another
study by the University of Iowa on black carbon emissions in China and other parts of Asia found
that black carbon emissions in China and other East Asia increased by 93.5% and 127.4%,
respectively, during the six years between 2000 and 2006 (CGRER 2010). While there are
methodological discrepancies in quantifying black carbon emissions, those results reveal the
significance of addressing black carbon in China and East Asia.
But much work is ahead. Studies at both national and regional levels in North-East Asia are still
at preliminary stage and existing mechanisms; LTP and EANET have not incorporated this issue
into their programme yet. Thus, there is an important aspect for the CLRTAP to replicate its
approaches to North-East Asia. Such co-existing problem is paving the way for different regions
to transfer knowledge and experience with controlling new target substances that have
implications beyond the regional boundaries. CLRTAP approach to creating mutual scientific
consensus on black carbon can be learned and applied to Asia, in particular, North-East Asia, to
help formulate multilateral collaboration on conducting research and institutionalizing
appropriate measures.
5. Conclusion
12
Atmospheric governance in North-East Asia is expected to move onto new approaches from
2013. After finishing the Third Stage of activities in 2012, LTP would try to expand activity scope
and reshape activity approach for the Fourth Stage starting from 2014 after a year of
consultation process. Japan, which has driven the establishment and operation of EANET, also
seeks to develop a new platform to overcome the limitation of the institutional setting of EANET.
In this regard, Japanese institutions have conducted research on “Scientific Analysis of Regional
Air Pollution and Promotion of Air Pollution Management in East Asia Considering Co-benefits”
to identify possible options for developing and/or strengthening a regional framework (Jiro,
2012). As a key focus of the planned research for 2013, hemispherical long-range transport of
ozone and aerosol pollution will require implementation of the new platform that will
substantially widen the scope of collaboration.
In this course of reshaping atmospheric governance, strengthening the knowledge basis of
governance will be a key component to promoting its formation and overcoming politically
sensitive issues. For the case of LTP, its current challenge can be described by having a scientific
knowledge basis that is yet to be fully integrated into a solid whole, accompanied by lukewarm
political attention and institutional status. The current shortcomings of consensual knowledge
may be seen as the areas in which inter-regional collaboration or consultation with other
atmospheric governance mechanisms can be of great value. Collaboration can also occur among
the epistemic communities. While this is an endogenous need for LTP to reverberate beyond
region, the exogenous component lies in the need to advance common understanding on the
impacts of air pollution that extend far beyond the region.
13
References
Carmichael G. and Arndt R. (1997). “Baseline Assessment of Acid Deposition in Northeast Asia.”
Web. Available at http:// www.nautilus.org/papers/energy (Accessed: 2000, January 10).
Carmichael G., Calori G., Hayami H., Uno I. (1999). “Model inter-comparison study of long range
transport and sulfur deposition in East Asia (MICS-ASIA).” A draft report.
CGRER (Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research) (2010). “Emission Data
Summary of Changes.” Web. Available at www.cgrer.uiowa.edu/EMISSION_
DATA_new/summary_of_changes.html. (Accessed: 3 January 2012).
Chang, Limseok (2012). “Review of the Main Activities on Transboundary Air Pollution in NorthEast Asia.” Report submission to the NEASPEC Secretariat.
Cho, Seok Youn (2012). “Achievement and Evaluation of the LTP Porject.” Assessment of the
Long-range Transboundary Air Pollutants in Northeast Asia (LTP) Project: 116-131.
Clark W., Jager J., van Eijndhoven J. (2001). “Acid Rain, Ozone Depletion and Climate Change: An
Historical Overview.” In: the Social Learning Group (ed.), Learning to Manage Global
Environmental Risks, MIT Press.
DCAP (Department of Climate and Atmospheric Policy), Ministry of Environment of ROK (2011).
Submission to the Expert Meeting to Establish LTP Future Development Plan, 14 December 2011.
EuMetChem (2012). “Work Plans for Model Inter-Comparison Study – Asia Phase III.” Web.
Available at http://eumetchem.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=
article&id=74%3Awork-plans-for-model-inter-comparison-study-asia-phase-iii-mics-asia-iii-&cat
id=13%3Aevents&Itemid=57&lang=en. (Accessed: 4 January 2013).
Global Environment Research Center and National Institute of Environmental Research (2012).
“Long Term and Intensive Monitoring at Rishiri and Oki, Japan.” Japanese National Report
submission to the Proceeding for the 15th Expert Meeting for the Long-range Transboundary Air
Pollutants in Northeast Asia: 25-67.
Huang M., Wang Z., He D. (1995). “Modeling studies on sulfur deposition and transport in East
Asia.” Water, Air and Soil Pollution 85: 1921-1926.
Huber M. and Liberatore, A. (2001). “A Regional Approach to the Management of Global
Environmental Risks in Europe.” In: the Social Learning Group (ed.), Learning to Manage Global
Environmental Risks, MIT Press.
Ichikawa, Y. and Fujita, S. (1995). “An analysis of wet deposition of sulfate using a trajectory
model for East Asia.” Water, Air and Soil Pollution 85: 1927-1932.
Jiro, Sato (2012). “Review of Existing and Required Capacities for Addressing Adverse
Environmental Impact of Transboundary Air Pollution in North-East Asia.” Report submission to
the NEASPEC Secretariat.
Kim, Chul-hee (2010). “Impact Assessment of Ozone and PM.” Paper submission to Expert
Meeting for LTP Fourth Stage Planning: 21-35(in Korean).
14
Kim, Dong-young (2010). “Arbitrating the tripartite relationship through simulation of future
collaboration scenario.” Paper submission to Expert Meeting for LTP Fourth Stage Planning: 3649(in Korean).
Komori, Yasumasa (2010). “Evaluating Regional Environmental Governance in Northeast Asia.”
Asian Affairs: An American Review 37: 1-25.
Levy, Marc (1993). “European acid rain: the power of tote-board diplomacy. In: Hass, P.,
Keohane, R. and Levy, M. (eds.) Institution for the Earth: Sources of Effectiveness International
Environmental Protection, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Lidskog, R. and Sundqvist G. (2002). “The Role of Science in Environmental Regimes: The Case of
LRTAP.” European Journal of International Relations 8 (77): 77-101.
LTP Secretariat (2012). “Long Term and Intensive Monitoring at Rishiri and Oki, Japan.” Japanese
National Report Submission to Proceeding for the 15th Expert Meeting for the Long-range
Transboundary Air Pollutants in Northeast Asia: 25-67.
Luangjame, Jesada (ADORC, EANET). “The Acid Deposition Monitoring Network in East Asia:
Recent Activities.” Presented at the Twenty-seventh Session of the Executive Body for the
CLRTAP, 14-18 December 2009 Geneva.
Miyazaki, Asami (2007). “Judiciousness of Networks in Environmental Governance?: A Case
Study of the Acid Deposition Monitoring Network in East Asia.” Unpublished. Web. Available at
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/ffu/akumwelt/bc2008/papers/bc2008_404_ Miyazaki.pdf.
(Accessed 7 December 2012).
Nam, Sangmin (2002). Institutionalizing Regional Environmental Governance in Northeast Asia:
Role of Actors, Knowledge and Interests. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Melbourne.
NEASPEC Secretariat (2012). “Review of the Main Activities on Transboundary Air Pollution in
North-East Asia.” NEASPEC.
Ramanathan, Veerabhadran (2007). “Role of Black Carbon on Global and Regional Climate
Change.” Testimonial to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 18 October
2007, Washington DC.
Shim, Sang-gyu (2000). “Transboundary air pollution in the northeastern Asian region.”
Submission to Proceeding of International Workshop on Environmental Peace in East Asia, 5-7
July, Seoul: Korean National Commission for UNESCO.
Shim, Sang-gyu (2010). “Establishing Real Time AQM for North-East Asia.” Paper submission to
Expert Meeting for LTP Fourth Stage Planning: 5-13 (in Korean).
Soroos, Marvin (1997). The Endangered Atmosphere: preserving a global commons. Columbia:
University of South Carolina Press.
SWG (Secretariat of Working Group for the LTP Project) (2012). Annual Report: The Twelfth
year’s Joint Research on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollutants in Northeast Asia. LTP Project.
15
UNECE (2010). “Report by the Co-Chairs of the Ad Hoc Expert Group on Black Carbon.”
Submission to the Executive Body for the Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution
at the 28th Session. UNECE.
UNECE (2011). Press release: “UNECE takes the lead in tackling air pollution issues affecting
human health with additional benefits for climate change by reducing black carbon emissions.”
Web. Available at www.unece.org/press/pr2011/11env_p16e.html. (Accessed on 2 January
2012).
UNEP (2001). “International Environmental Governance: multilateral environmental agreements
(MEAs).” Presented at Meetings of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Group of Ministers or
Their Representatives on international Environmental Governance. 18 April 2001,
UNEP/IGM/1/INF/3. New York.
UNEP (2008). Atmospheric Brown Clouds: Regional Assessment Report with Focus on Asia.
United Nations Environment Programme.
UNESCAP SRO-ENEA (2012). “Potential LTP Secretariat Arrangements with UNESCAP.” Paper
submitted to the 15th Expert Meeting for the Long-range Transboundary Air Pollutants in NorthEast Asia, 14-16 November 2012 Busan.
Woo, Jung-hyung (2010). “Source-Receptor Relationship Analysis using advanced methods.”
Paper submission to Expert Meeting for LTP Fourth Stage Planning: 14-20 (in Korean).
Yagishita, Masaharu (1995). “Establishing an acid deposition monitoring network in East Asia.”
Water Air and Soil Pollution 85 (1): 273-278.
16